I’ve spent the last decade writing and speaking about the remarkable and terrifying world of biotechnology from a Catholic perspective. Many times I’ve felt like Frodo Baggins at the gates of Mordor, looking upon Mt. Doom with despair and dread.

I’ve never felt this more acutely than in the past few months. A series of recent headlines have renewed my sense of hopelessness in the face of the never-ending assault on the dignity of human life by modern biotechnology.

The gloom began to settle when it was revealed that a Swedish scientist is editing the DNA of healthy human embryos. Fredrik Lanner, a developmental biologist, is using a new gene-editing technique called CRISPR to disable some genes in healthy human embryos to see how those genes affect development. He and his team are intentionally modifying otherwise healthy IVF embryos so they cannot develop properly.

An in-depth story by NPR reveals that while the reporter was observing the genetic manipulation of five donated IVF embryos, one didn’t survive the thawing process and one perished after being injected with the experimental gene-editing tool. Of the three who survived, one continued to divide, but not for long. All of the embryos were to be destroyed before they are 15 days old, as the law in Sweden dictates. Lanner insists that his research is critical to understanding human development, which, in turn, will shed light on infertility and disease.

Lanner’s work makes many ethicists and scientists extremely nervous. Jennifer Doudna, the co-inventor of CRISPR, along with other heavy-hitting scientists, have called for a voluntary moratorium on any editing of human embryos for fear that it will lead to the creation of genetically modified children. Marcy Darnovsky, of the left-leaning Center for Genetics and Society, explains why she and her group have been so vocal in their opposition to the modification of human embryos. She told NPR: “The production of genetically modified human embryos is actually quite dangerous. ... When you’re editing the genes of human embryos, that means you’re changing the genes of every cell in the bodies of every offspring, every future generation of that human being. So these are permanent and probably irreversible changes that we just don’t know what they would mean.”

Then came the revelation that a U.S. doctor traveled to Mexico to create the first baby intentionally engineered to have three genetic parents.

Tuesday, October 22. 2013

This is so horrific and evil that it almost defies reason. Officials have rescued a girl from Somalia that was brought to the UK to harvest her organs. They are sure that this is not an isolated incidence. The Telegraph has the story:

The unnamed girl was brought to the UK from Somalia with the intention of removing her organs and selling them on to those desperate for a transplant.

Child protection charities warned that the case was unlikely to be an isolated incident as traffickers were likely to have smuggled a group of children into the country.

The case emerged in a government report which showed that the number of human trafficking victims in the UK has risen by more than 50 per cent last year and reached record levels.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that we abandon the embryo at our own peril. Once we accept the exploitation of one of our species for parts, then we all start to look like harvestable biological material that could be used better somewhere else.

Is it just a coincidence that as the West creates and destroys embryos on a massive scale, exploitation of those in the third world for their body parts by rich Westerners is on the rise? I doubt it.

This is the world we live in. Without a fundamental shift back to the understanding that human life is sacred no matter the stage of development, skin color, or socioeconomic status, this is going to continue and likely get worse.

Carney asserts that it is the anonymity of organ transplants, blood transfusion and even egg donations that allows body brokers to exploit the poor and allows the recipients of ill-gotten parts to turn a blind-eye. Would you be so quick to accept that kidney if you knew it came from a girl from Somalia? Would a doctor transplant such an organ?

Obviously, anonymity is in place to protect both donor and recipient. But that is in a wholesome system were parts are obtained ethically. Anonymity in a world such as ours, where the West seems to have an insatiable appetite for parts, just protects the black marketeers and keeps their victims out of sight. No one is responsible because no one knows anything.

It is time to bring sunlight to the dark shadows of a growing organ market. Maybe getting rid of the anonymity that clouds the trade in body parts is a step in the right direction.

Wednesday, April 3. 2013

Obama has announced his latest project, the BRAIN Initiative. BRAIN is short for Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies. Hinting at this $100 million project (to start) in his State of the Union address, Obama pronounced:

“If we want to make the best products, we also have to invest in the best ideas... Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy... Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s… Now is not the time to gut these job-creating investments in science and innovation. Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the Space Race.”

This "Next Great American Project" seeks to map the activity of the human brain. Not a small endeavor, which means there is no projected end. We know practically nothing about how the human brain works. As neurobiologist Lesile Vosshall tweeted when she heard about Obama's plans, "Baffled by the NIH Brain Activity Map Project. We don't understand the fly brain yet."

Initially the project will focus on improving technologies to study the brain. What we have now simply cannot give us a picture of how the brain's 100 billion neurons work together.

Putting the wisdom of spending money on such research in a time of sweeping budget cuts aside, this initiative may give us a better understanding of devastating conditions like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and schizophrenia. (I say "may" because some scientists are skeptical that big government initiatives are the best way to forward progress. Some believe that such big interventionshurt rather than help. UC Berkeley biologist Michael Eisen wrote on his blog. "I think it is now clear that big biology is not a boon for individual discovery-driven science. Ironically, and tragically, it is emerging as the greatest threat to its continued existence.")

Beyond budget and possible therapeutic discoveries, there are a couple of red flags with BRAIN. Big, shiny, flashing ones.

Wednesday, November 28. 2012

This is one of the strangest treatment plans I have ever read about. Doctors in New York will purposefully give young adults with autism parasitic worms in hopes of treating their autism. Yes, you read that right. Worms.

The thought is that the non-harmful parasitic worms will engage immune system which doctors hope will reduce the inflammation characteristic in patients with autism. The Scientist has the slimy, squirmy details:

A growing body of evidence suggests that in some patients, increased inflammation contributes to autistic behaviors. Now, a Phase I clinical trial is under way to measure the effects of infecting autistic patients with a non-pathogenic parasitic worm. Scientists at Montefiore Medical Center at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and biotech company Coronado Biosciences will test the hypothesis that treating these patients with Trichuris suis, a non-pathogenic parasitic pig whipworm, will dampen their immune responses and ameliorate repetitive and irritable behaviors.

“The trial is a novel approach [to autism treatment] with a naturally occurring drug delivery system”—a parasitic worm, said Eric Hollander, a Montefiore psychiatrist and head scientist on the trial.

Autoimmune and allergic diseases are more prevalent in more developed countries where citizens are accustomed to better water quality and less contact with farm animals. Some researchers chalk this phenomenon up to the so-called hygiene hypothesis, which posits that the microbes and parasites that humans co-evolved with act to help keep our immune responses in check. The theory was spurred initially by observations in humans—that after anti-parasitic therapy, people scored higher on allergy skin prick tests, or that autoimmunity and allergies were more prevalent in more-developed West Germany than East Germany—and supported by laboratory studies on mouse models of such diseases, said Marie-Helen Jouvin, a pathologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard University, who is not involved in the clinical trial. Parasites, such as the whipworm used in the autism trial, are thought to both dampen inflammation and stimulate immune regulatory pathways in their hosts.

Cool, but seriously gross. I am not sure I could get over the "infected with parasitic worms" part. The trial will be for 10 adults aged 18-35. Here is hoping this trial has some positive results. Otherwise it might just be opening a can of worms. Sorry....I couldn't resist.

Friday, June 8. 2012

When I talk to my fellow Americans about biotechnology, they have this idea that all the bad stuff will happen in places like China and that the horrors of Huxley's Brave New World will never happen here. Cloning, human genetic engineering and the like will happen somewhere else, but not in the good ol' USA.

Unfortunately we Americans are woefully ignorant about biotechnology and the laws that govern emerging technologies in other countries. Essentially, that other countries have laws and we don't.

Why not? We have Roe v. Wade. I am no constitutional scholar, but I can see the writing on the wall. See Roe v. Wade is not simply about abortion. Thanks to the landmark decision we think we have rights found in our Constitution that aren't actually in there: "reproductive rights." A right to reproduce or not. Which means a right to have a child or not. Which means children are a right, not a gift. I doubt the framers of our Constitution thought there was such a right, otherwise it would have been included, specifically. The Declaration of Independence does not say that part of our inalienable rights are, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.... oh! and a child when we want, however we want, and one of our choosing."

The legacy of Roe means that anytime any federal legislation is proposed that would address the ethical implications surrounding new technologies like prenatal testing, IVF, cloning or genetic engineering, it will fail to pass (or will be struck down in court) because somewhere, somehow, someone's "reproductive rights" might be affected.

Tuesday, March 6. 2012

An AIDS vaccine developed in Cuba will begin human testing this year. From the Deccan Chronicle:

Cuba's top biotech teams have successfully tested a new AIDS vaccine on mice, and are ready to soon begin human testing, a leading researcher told a biotechnology conference in Havana.

"The new AIDS trial vaccine already was tested successfully (on mice) and now we are preparing a very small, tightly controlled phase one clinical trial with HIV-positive patients who are not in the advanced stages of disease," researcher Enrique Iglesias said on Monday.

Iglesias, who heads up the vaccine development team at the Biotech and Genetic Engineering Center (CIGB) here, was speaking at the International Biotech Conference-Havana 2012, which started yesterday in Cuba's capital.

He told the crowd at the convention center that the vaccine TERAVAC-HIV-1 was made from recombinant proteins aiming 'to cause a cellular response against the (HIV) virus'. While upbeat, the Cuban expert was quick to downplay high hopes for a long-awaited successful AIDS vaccine.

"So far, there have been more than 100 clinical tests (on humans) with HIV" in Cuba and other countries, "and all of them have failed," he stressed.

Tuesday, January 10. 2012

This last year has shown hope for a cognitive treatment for Down Syndrome. And yet there has been some reservations about such treatment by parents of children with Down Syndrome. They worry that treating their child for cognitive dysfunction implies that there is something wrong with having Down Syndrome. That somehow their beautiful, loving, happy child is not good enough and needs fixing.

In her article for LifeNews, Effie Caldarola, a mother of a child with Down Syndrome, asks:

Is this good? The idea raises questions on so many levels. Who would hesitate to immunize their child against disease, buy them the eyeglasses they need, or let’s face it, indulge the American desire for every child to have the perfectly aligned set of teeth? But to alter someone’s intelligence level with a drug? Does this suggest that there is something wrong, something diseased or misaligned, about the I.Q. with which we are born?

What next? Can we soon alter all of our children’s I.Q.s? Should we? And specifically, what about those kids with Down’s? If you continue to have all the other attributes of the syndrome, the possible heart problems or speech impairments, the physical distinctions, how does all of that fit in with an I.Q. level that’s in the “normal” range — whatever “normal” means?

I am not a parent of a special needs child so it is incredibly difficult for me to comment on these very valid concerns. Making genetics my profession, I have always thought a person is more than just a sum of their genes. So for me a person with Down Syndrome is so much more than their extra chromosome 21. The syndrome is not who they are. It does not define them. And so therefore I have never personally perceived treating the cognitive issues associated with Downs as a rejection of their person. I also do not believe that a person with Down Syndrome needs to be "fixed." But I could certainly see how such measures could be perceived as such.

Dr. Gerard Nadal has written a fantastic response to the ethical issues surrounding the treatment of Down Syndrome. I thank him for writing it. A father of a special needs child Joseph, Dr. Nadal adroitly handles this very sensitive issue by explaining that treatment that allows children to be the best they can be is not a rejection of who they are:

Do we want Joseph to only become “functional enough” and then leave him looking sufficiently autistic? No, of course not. We want him to be all that he is capable of becoming, given the brain with which God has blessed him. He will never not have autism. He will forever retain certain of the traits that define autism. However, we want him to have as many options in life as possible.

This isn’t because we reject his autism. It’s because his autism ought not limit his options if there is anything we can do about it.

Joseph’s great dignity does not come from having autism. It comes from being a child of a loving God, entrusted to a mother and father who love him simply as their son. It matters not how he is neurologically configured. We don’t love him any more or less than we love his sisters. We love him simply because he is our son, and that love compels us to seek the very best for him in life.

Parents of those with Down Syndrome are no different. However, some have come to define their child by the child’s developmental and neurological configuration, and not by the more metaphysical realities. Like Joseph, high academic achievement in the child with Down Syndrome will never ameliorate their underlying physical reality.

Tuesday, January 3. 2012

Reflecting on 2011, I began thinking of the 5 events in biotechnology that were the greatest threats to the sanctity of human life. True to my mission though, I couldn't just talk about what is bad in the biotech arena. I also have to celebrate the 5 ways biotechnology has improved or preserved human life.

In 2011, there were more ways human life was marginalized than a pro-life person could possibly count. I focused on 5 events that I believe will continue to threaten the sanctity of human life in 2012 and beyond.

The Worst:

5. Three-parent embryoThis year researchers in England announced they created human embryos with three genetic parents in an attempt to prevent the inheritance of mitochondrial disease. Scientists created 2 embryos with IVF, destroyed one embryo by removing its nuclear DNA and added the DNA from the other human embryo ultimately creating a hybrid embryo with DNA from two women and one man. (Confused? Here is an illustration.) Scientists want to start implanting these genetically engineered human embryos in 2012. Curing genetic disease is a laudable goal, but destroying human embryos for parts to make other embryos disease free is not the way to do it.4. Creation of glow-in-the-dark kittensIn 2011, scientists at the Mayo clinic announced they made a glow-in-the-dark kitty. This is not the first time scientists have made cats glow with the green fluorescent protein. But these kitties were different. In the past, transgenic cats and other glow-in-the-dark animals were made by SCNT better known as cloning. These illuminating cats were made instead with a tweak on plain old in vitro fertilization or IVF. Researchers modified the egg and then fertilized it with regular sperm. This modification was shown not only to be incorporated into the first generation kitty, but for the second generation as well making it a technique that produces germ-line genetic modifications or modifications that can be passed on from generation to generation. This was the first time this technique of modified IVF was successful in carnivores.

So why are these kitties part of the worst? Their creation is not necessarily unethical but they point to possible unethical experimentation in humans. In the past the prevailing wisdom was that before we could genetically modify humans we needed to perfect human cloning. These cats prove that it may only take modifying eggs or sperm before IVF to create a genetically modified human that could pass that modification onto his or her offspring. With IVF being such an accepted and widespread practice, it may not be long before parents are ordering up germ-line genetically modified offspring that will have no choice but to pass their modification on their children and grandchildren.3. Rise of selective reductionThis year we were introduced to the ugly practice of selective reduction, a euphemistic term that describes the killing of one fetus in a multiple pregnancy. Selective reduction is becoming more commonplace because of fertility treatments like IVF are creating more and more multiples and doctors are advising patients to "reduce" their quadruplets, triplets and even twins down to two or even one baby. In 2011 the world discovered the truth that abortion is the "safety net" for IVF.

1. The return of Captain AmericaWhat? Captain America? What does a movie about an awesome super hero have to do with dangerous biotechnology? (Alright, I admit a movie isn't technically biotechnology but hear me out.) Captain America is the perfect, palatable example of transhumanism, the most dangerous movement that no one knows about. Transhumanism seeks to use technology to transform humanity into something other than human, the "transhuman" meaning "beyond" human. Artificial limbs, cognitive enhancing drugs, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology are tools not to heal the sick and injured but to create the transhumanist's perfect technological utopia where being human just won't be good enough. You must be enhanced.

The reason Captain America is so dangerous is because he is the perfect poster child for transhumanism. Captain America is the only super hero that I know where the enhancements are a choice. The Hulk and Spiderman were accidents. The X Men were born that way and Superman is from another planet. The Green Lantern has a ring that he can take on and off and Ironman has a suit, so their enhancements aren't permanent. But in Captain America, everyday American Steve Rodgers was experimented on to make a better soldier to help win a war. He was healthy and underwent potentially fatal procedures to make him Captain America, placing in the subconscious of every boy and girl in the United States that the way to become a hero is to volunteer to let your government experiment on you. Totally unethical and totally dangerous.

And now for the most promising events in biotechnology that affirmed human life in 2011.

The Best:

5. Induced pluripotent stem cellsResearchers can now take a cell like a skin cell and reprogram it back to an embryonic-like state creating cells that can be used ethically to research disease. No embryos needed. These induced pluripotent stem cells really came into their own in 2011. The Scientist even called them biology's new super model.

3. Ban on patenting of human embryosIn both Europe and the United States movements where successful in preventing the patenting of human embryos. These were small, but important, protections against the further commodification of the smallest of human lives.

2. Vatican gives $1 million to adult stem cell researchThis year the Vatican put its money where its mouth is and partnered with Neostem, an adult stem cell company, in creating a non-profit foundation focused on fund raising, education and putting on an adult stem cell conference in Rome that took place in November.

1. NaPro TechnologyIVF is not the best nor the only treatment for infertility. NaPro Technology has been around for decades, but 2011 saw a rise in awareness about this ethical and effective alternative to IVF for infertility. NaPro Technology looks at the underlying causes of infertility and treats them giving infertile couples hope for children without creating and destroying human embryos in a lab. Besides being natural and ethical, the best part of NaPro Technology is once the cause of infertility is identified and treated, couples can get pregnant again and again.

Sunday, October 2. 2011

One of the most asked about and difficult ethical issues for Catholic parents to deal with is the issue with vaccination. Many vaccines are created with cell lines that originated from an aborted fetus. Cell lines MRC-5 and WI-38 are common cell lines used to produce vaccines for rubella, polio, hepatitis A and chicken pox. MRC-5 was developed from lung cells from a 14-week-old male fetus that was electively aborted in 1966. The WI-38 line was derived from a female fetus that was aborted in 1964. There are alternatives possible to using these cell lines that originated from abortion, but unless manufacturers are pressured to change to alternative cell lines, it is unlikely that they will.Many people often argue that using fetal cells from an aborted fetus is morally acceptable because the fetus was going to die anyway. The Catholic Church rejects this argument. If an organism must be intentionally destroyed to harvest cells, then the cells are morally tainted. If these fetal stem cells had come from a natural miscarriage, then it would be morally permissible for parents to donate these cells to research. The morality of fetal cell use is analogous to that of organ donation. If the patient died of natural causes or a traumatic event, then is is morally permissible to use their organs for the benefit of others. It is not morally permissible to intentionally and prematurely end a person's life and then take their organs for donation. Using fetal stem cells from aborted fetuses is analogous to using organs from death row inmates or victims of euthanasia.So can Catholic parents, in good conscience, get their children vaccinated with vaccines made with cell lines like MRC-5 and WI-38? Yes, but only if certain conditions are met. Parents must ask their health care provider for an alternative to vaccines made with cell lines from aborted fetuses. If there are no alternatives, then they must voice their objection. Bishop Robert Vasawrote the followingabout vaccines that used cell lines obtained through immoral means:

Thus my reading of [Dignitas Personae] inclines me to conclude that parents may use these vaccines derived from cell lines of illicit origin but they should inquire about the availability of a more ethical alternative and they must make their objections known to the physician, to the health care system and to the FDA. Clearly, the use of these vaccines, while morally permissible, is not entirely morally neutral....

In reality, if everyone did this then one of two things would happen. The pharmaceutical companies would stop making the vaccine or they would begin to look seriously for alternatives that are not tied to abortion. Without our protest, however, these companies have no incentive to change their ways. They will continue to do evil that good may come from it; we will continue to receive the good they produce, and we will thus give moral and financial support to their heinous practices.

Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Instituteis a Seattle company has "developed a certification program to let consumers know how their vaccines, drugs and cosmetics are manufactured so that they can make informed choices about what to purchase." You can contact them if you have questions about whether a certain vaccine or other drug is morally tainted.

Monday, February 8. 2010

The prolife movement has been screaming about this for years and it nice to see that those diagnosed as being in a persistive vegetative state (often called "vegetables" by the so very enlightened elite) are finally being heard. From New Scientist's Giving the 'unconscious' a voice:

THE inner voice of people who appear unconscious can now be heard. For the first time, researchers have struck up a conversation with a man diagnosed as being in a vegetative state. All they had to do was monitor how his brain responded to specific questions. This means that it may now be possible to give some individuals in the same state a degree of autonomy.

"They can now have some involvement in their destiny," says Adrian Owen of the University of Cambridge, who led the team doing the work.

In an earlier experiment, published in 2006, Owen's team asked a woman previously diagnosed as being in a vegetative state (VS) to picture herself carrying out one of two different activities. The resulting brain activity suggested she understood the commands and was therefore conscious.

Now Owen's team has taken the idea a step further. A man also diagnosed with VS was able to answer yes and no to specific questions by imagining himself engaging in the same activities.

The results suggest that it is possible to give a degree of choice to some people who have no other way of communicating with the outside world. "We are not just showing they are conscious, we are giving them a voice and a way to communicate," says neurologist Steven Laureys of the University of Liège in Belgium, Owen's collaborator.

We are not just showing that people are conscious - we are giving them way of communicating

When someone is in a VS, they can breathe unaided, have intact reflexes but seem completely unaware. But it is becoming clear that some people who appear to be vegetative are in fact minimally conscious. They are in a kind of twilight state in which they may feel some pain, experience emotion and communicate to a limited extent. These two states can be distinguished from each other via bedside behavioural tests - but these tests are not perfect and can miss patients who are aware but unable to move. So researchers are looking for ways to detect consciousness with brain imaging.

These questions — and a few of their answers — are part of an intriguing new show called "Molecules that Matter," which opened Friday and remains through Dec. 13 at Grinnell College's Faulconer Gallery. It chronicles the 20th century one chemical at a time, with cultural artifacts and modern works of art to help explain how tiny molecules make a huge impact on our lives.

If previous eras were the Stone Age or the Bronze Age, future historians may call the 20th century the Chemical Age.

"Our knowledge of substances at the molecular level has significantly redefined our world - even life itself," writes Raymond Giguere in the exhibition's 192-page catalog. He created the touring show for the Chemical Heritage Foundation and the Tang Museum at Skidmore College in upstate New York, where he teaches organic chemistry.

Tuesday, June 30. 2009

HIV needs cholesterol to infect cells. So removing cholesterol from a cells membrane is one possible way to prevent HIV infection. From a John's Hopkins study:

"With a vaccine not immediately on the horizon, microbicides that can remove cholesterol from cell membranes, rendering HIV non-infectious, may play an important part in controlling the AIDS pandemic," says James Hildreth, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of pharmacology and molecular science at Johns Hopkins and principal investigator of the study.

Researchers found that a starchy substance that drains cholesterol from a cell’s membrane can completely block HIV transmission. Using microbicides that contain this cholesterol-depletor during sex should be able to reduce or stop HIV transmission, according to the study.

This starchy substance that removes the cholesterol HIV needs to infect cells from cell membranes is called cyclodextrin. It sounds like a drug, but it isn't. Cyclodextrins are used for all kinds of things from diet supplements to Febreze. Cyclodextrins are now being investigated as a treatment for Niemann-Pick disease, type C a fatal genetic disease of cholesterol metabolism. Patients with Niemann-Pick disease, type C cannot break down cholesterol and it builds up in their cells.

Cyclodextrin could be used in a cream that would prevent HIV transmission during sex which just might squash the raging debates over condom use as a strategy to prevent the spread of AIDS. This could mean a prevention of HIV transmission without the contraceptive effect. A concept the Catholic Church could possibly get behind for married couples where one partner has HIV.

Friday, October 3. 2008

The human papilloma virus or HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer. And you guessed it, HPV is a sexually transmitted virus. It is estimated that over 6 million people contract HPV and close to 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year in the U.S. The annual pap smear is the first line of defense against HPV and cervical cancer.

There has been a lot of debate about where the new vaccine against HPV is going to promote promiscuity. The vaccine is recommended for girls as young as 11. The argument is that the earlier that vaccination, the better the protection against HPV.

There are some Catholics who feels very strongly that the HPV vaccination is evil. I disagree and so does the Catholic Medical Association. Just because HPV is a sexually transmitted virus does not mean that prevention is unethical.

What is unethical is making the vaccine mandatory. HPV is not pertussis or polio or the measles or even the chicken pox. You do not "accidentally" get HPV. HPV can be prevented by responsible sexual behavior. Girls and their parents should have a choice whether or not vaccination for HPV is right for them.

A new requirement that girls as young as 11 be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus before they can become legal U.S. residents is unfair, immigration advocates say.

The federal rule added Gardasil to the list of vaccinations that female immigrants ages 11 to 26 must get before they can obtain "green cards."

The series of three shots over six months protects against the strains of the human papillomavirus blamed for most cases of cervical cancer and genital warts. But the vaccine is one of the most expensive on the market and controversial.

"This is a huge economic, social and cultural barrier to immigrants who are coming into America," said Tuyet Duong, senior staff attorney for the Immigration and Immigrant Rights Program at the Asian American Justice Center.

At a cost of $400, Gardasil places an added burden on green card applicants already paying more than $1,000 in form fees and hundreds of dollars for mandatory medical exams, advocates say.

I am all for legal immigration. I am all for making sure the legal immigrants that come to the U.S. are healthy and get the same vaccines that are required for my children. But mandating that girls as young as 11 get vaccinated against HPV is downright wrong. Education? Yes. Give us your daughter so we can inject her with a vaccine that may or may not protect her from a sexually transmitted virus that is detectable with routine pap smears or else you cannot live here? Absolutely not!

I have to wonder how much the immigration official who made this insane decision is getting from the makers of the vaccine.

Monday, May 7. 2007

Everywhere in the the world infectious disease is a problem, but it is definitely a huge problem for the poorest nations. Think HIV in Africa. One of the problems with infectious disease is diagnosis. You cannot treat infectious disease like HIV or Hepatitis B or C unless you know who has it and in poor rural areas access to and cost for testing is a problem.

One of the most powerful tools for infectious diesase testing is polymerase chain reaction or PCR. PCR essentially makes millions of copies of a particular stretch of DNA. The reason PCR is so useful is that it is very difficult to detect an active virus in a small blood sample. Using PCR, if a virus is present in a sample, millions of copies of the viral DNA (or RNA) can be made and then easily detected. Also, using PCR, if a bacteria like Tuberculosis or B. Pertussis (whooping cough) is present, millions of copies of the bacterial DNA can be made in a couple of hours and treatment can start right away if needed.

We use PCR to detect and quantitate hepatitis B and C in my laboratory. Many other labs do the same for HIV and bacterial infections. But that means the sample needs to be collected properly and brought to the lab under the right storage conditions.

A miniaturised DNA copier that is portable, costs $10, and runs on AA batteries, could prove vital in diagnosing AIDS and TB in developing countries

A pocket-sized $10 device that can "amplify" DNA is promising a cheap, portable method for diagnosing HIV and TB. Like existing lab equipment, the device uses the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify a sample, but is does this in as little as 20 minutes, rather than the hour or two usually needed. "I hope this will make PCR more available," says Victor Ugaz of Texas A&M University in College Station, whose group developed the device.

Fast, cheap and portable. This device may help millions in poor countries who do not have access to proper diagnostic testing. Proper diagnosis means proper treatment and that is a very good thing.

Tuesday, April 24. 2007

British scientists are working on a baby formula which would chemically restructure the metabolic system of children to ensure they never became obese.

Studies in mice have found that large doses of the appetite-controlling hormone leptin during infancy permanently prevent excess weight gain and reduce the chances of type 2 diabetes.

Now researchers at the University of Buckingham say a leptin-enriched baby milk which does exactly the same is less than 10 years away, raising a plethora of medical, legal and ethical questions.

Other specialists in the field condemned the search for a medical answer to obesity, saying it is a modern social ill and that people need to address their lifestyles, not look for an artificial quick fix.

More suggested the translation to baby food would be impossible as people would not put their children forward for trials of the formula when they did not know the risks involved.

The research is reported in the journal Chemistry and Industry today.

Leptin turns off appetite throughout life, but the scientists last year proved that high doses in mice through pregnancy and early life permanently reduced weight. They now believe it plays a role in hard-wiring the brain's appetite response in infancy.

Mike Cawthorne, who led the researchers, said: "The supplemented milks are simply adding back something that was originally present: breast milk contains leptin and formula feeds don't.

"Yes, it raises ethical questions. Obesity is a social problem, but it's also a health problem which costs us millions of pounds a year and is getting worse. It's not just a social problem.

"New ideas always face scepticism, but I think this is very, very likely within several years' time."

Previous experiments in treating obese people with leptin have failed as people continued to overeat. And though some research has linked bottle-fed babies to childhood obesity, none has concluded that breast-fed babies resist obesity throughout life.

Nick Finer, clinical director at the Wellcome Clinical Research Facility at Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, said: "The concept that adding something to a food that could permanently alter brain development is exciting but at the same time so scary that it would mean a wholly new approach about how such treatments can be tested and approved for use. Would the first trials be in newly born children?

"The importance of leptin (and other hormones) at determining the development of brain circuits that control energy balance is an area of current research interest. The leap to a functional food being effective or safe is enormous."

Monday, March 5. 2007

The University of Utah has the coolest science animations ever. They have a section on drugs of abuse and their affect on the brain. This really piqued my interested because I once worked in a toxicology laboratory. Check out the Drugs of Abuse and Mouse Party animations to learn more about the effects of illicit drug use. Might want to pass these on to the teenager in your life.

Saturday, March 3. 2007

In case you don't know who Craig Venter is, he is the man behind Celera, the company that was in a race with the Human Genome Project to be the first to sequence the entire human genome. Celera and the HGP declared a tie. Contrary to what you see on Heroes, Venter is one of a very few people who have had their DNA sequenced in the race for the entire human genetic code.

Here is Venter on the Colbert Report plugging his new venture Synthetic Genomics which looks to harness the power of genetic engineering to revolutionize industry. Via Genetics and Health

Wednesday, February 28. 2007

As a software engineer, I see the human mind as a beautiful combination of software and hardware. That's why I'm trying to hack my son's brain.

Caleb, 6, suffers from sensory processing disorder. To get a glimpse of what life is like for him, imagine you have no peripheral vision, and you constantly hear echos and distorted, out-of-sync sounds, making it hard to understand speech or appreciate music. When you walk, you can't tell where your legs are, or whether your arms are swinging. Sometimes just keeping your balance is difficult. You exasperate people for doing things you're not even aware of, like bumping into them or not making eye contact.

Like computers that can't multitask, or networks that lose information, this neurological disorder prevents the brain from correctly processing sensory input. The cause of SPD is a mystery, but the effects are very real.

Caleb is very bright, verbal, and a marvelous reader. But his brain can't handle all of the sensory input his body is sending him. His senses work individually to some extent, but when they are combined, his brain loses information.

The traditional treatment for SPD is occupational therapy. But I'm convinced that what Caleb needs instead is for his brain to be reprogrammed, recalibrated. With the help of some professionals and some surreal neurotechnology, we are trying to do just that.

The brain hack is a three-part "multisensory intervention program" at the Sensory Learning Center in Boulder, Colorado. A technician there subjects him to specialized light, sound, and motion therapy in a controlled environment. The goal is to help his brain reorganize the way it coordinates multisensory information. I have heard story after amazing story of children who have been helped by this program. It isn't cheap, and it isn't guaranteed, but I have to give my son a chance.

Monday, February 19. 2007

When we think cancer, most of us think cancer not something you can "catch." Actually, there is a virus, the human papilloma virus or HPV that is the leading cause of cervical cancer. And you guessed it, HPV is a sexually transmitted virus. It is estimated that over 6 million people contract HPV and close to 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year in the U.S. The annual pap smear is the first line of defense against HPV and cervical cancer.

But now there is a vaccine called Gardasil for HPV and there is much debate about whether or not to vaccinate girls against HPV. Some say that vaccinating girls against a sexually transmitted virus would promote promiscuity. I am of the mind that while my girls may not be sexually promiscous, their future husband just may be. So, I will likely vaccinate my girls.

There is no ethical objection to the HPV vaccine either as a strategy against disease or in its production. Patients and parents must have the opportunity to give informed consent to its administration.

Ethics

The fact that HPV is spread primarily by sexual contact does not render vaccination against it unethical. Healing and preventing diseases, no matter what their source, are acts of mercy and a moral good. Prevention of HPV infection is distinct from, and should not be construed as encouraging, the behavior by which HPV is spread.

Production

Gardasil ® is composed of recombinant type-specific capsid proteins that are expressed in yeast and that aggregate spontaneously intovirus-like particles. Its production does not involve cell lines derived from tissues of intentionally aborted babies as do other common vaccines such as those against hepatitis A, (some) rabies, rubella, varicella, and zoster.

Informed Consent

Generally accepted principles of informed consent include disclosure(of benefits, risks, and alternatives),understanding andvoluntariness. (Regarding voluntariness, see the discussion of mandates for the HPV vaccine, below.) In addition to the basic facts summarized in the manufacturers prescribing information, physicians should ensure that patients and parents understand that: Although Gardasil ® covers HPV 16 and 18, which account for 70% of cervical cancers, 11 other high risk strains of HPV exist that cause cancer; The duration of efficacy of the vaccine is not yet known. Booster injections may be required for sustained immunity; There are effective alternatives for preventing cervical cancer. For example, as a result of routine Pap smears over the past 50 years, the age-adjusted incidence of cervical cancer in U.S. women declined from 14.8/100,000 in 1975 to .1/100,000 in 2003; and during that time,the age-adjusted mortality from cervical cancer declined from 5.6/100,000 to 2.5/100,000.

2. Should the HPV Vaccine Be Mandated?

Public health officials and legislators across the country are discussing whether the HPV vaccine should be required for attendance at school by girls 9 years of age. Indeed, in some areas, public officials have been faced with intense lobbying efforts to mandate the use of this vaccine.The CMA opposes mandating the use of HPV vaccine, as well as direct or indirect efforts to pressure parents or minors to accept it.

In summary, the CMA thinks that the HPV vaccine is ethical. Just because HPV is sexually transmitted does not mean a vaccine against it is unethical. The CMA also states that certain conditions need to be met, including that the vaccine is not mandatory and that parents and minors are properly informed about risks and efficacy.

You need to care about nanotechnology because it has great promise while at the same time poses great peril. The idea is that with nanotechnology we can create nanomachines that can repair our cells, clean up a dirty water supply, kill cancer or even boost our intelligence.

Nanotechnology could, of course be, used by terrorsits to deliver an attack of killing nanomachines invisible to the naked eye.

And of course there is the proposed scenario that self-replicating nanomachines could take over the environment and destroy everything. This would be the famous grey goo scenario.

How does nanotechnology relate to transhumanism, the movement to make humans "better than human" through enhancement? Well, transhumanists want to use nanotechnology to boost human abilites and make us more than human.

Nigel Cameron and George Dvorsky face off on nanotechnology and transhumanism at Belief.net. Dvorsky is a transhumanist that embraces the possibilites that nanotechnology may transform the human race and Cameron worries about abandoning the things that make us human.

Both Q&As are must reads. I want to point out that Dvorsky does what many people do when discussing technology that has great possibility to cure disease: he equates therapy with enhancement like they are the same thing. Cameron rightly points out that there is a difference between using nanotechnology to cure disease (therapy) and using it to make an already healthy individual "better than human" (enhancement.)

The Catholic Church would say that therapy is sound medicine if the dignity of the person is respected, and enhancement is an affront to the sanctity of human life and would always be unethical.

Dec. 11, 2006 - University of Utah scientists designed a "molecular condom" women could use daily to prevent AIDS by vaginally inserting a liquid that would turn into a gel-like coating and then, when exposed to semen, return to liquid form and release an antiviral drug.

"We have developed a new vaginal gel that we call a molecular condom because it is composed of molecules that are liquid at room temperature and, when applied in the vagina, will spread and turn into a gel and effectively coat the tissue," says Patrick Kiser, an assistant professor of bioengineering. "It's a smart molecular condom because we designed this gel to release anti-HIV drugs when the gel comes into contact with semen during intercourse."

"The ultimate hope for this technology is to protect women and their unborn or nursing children from the AIDS virus," but the molecular condom is five years away from tests in humans and roughly 10 years until it might be in widespread use, Kiser says.

At first, I was totally disgusted by this. As a Catholic, my knee-jerk reaction against the word "condom" made me overlook what this is really about. The site mentions nothing about the prevention of pregnancy, just a way to deliver anti-HIV drugs to the place they are needed the most:

Kiser says the University of Utah molecular condom would be a more advanced method of delivering an antiviral drug to prevent infection by the AIDS virus.

"Up until now, most of the microbicide work has focused on the development of the active drug, not on the delivery of the drug," Kiser says. "This study and other work in my lab are directed at developing new technologies for vaginal delivery of antiviral agents, particularly a microbicide that can respond to triggers [body temperature and semen] that are present before, during and after intercourse. This is the first paper that begins to point in that direction."

Kiser says the dosage of anti-HIV drugs in first-generation microbicides lasts only a few hours, so "you have to use them an hour before sex, which is difficult. You only need one failure to get the disease. We're shooting for a microbicide delivery system that would be used once a day or once a month."

I doubt that if the molecular condom turns to liquid upon intercourse that it would not be very effective as a contraceptive. HIV is carried in the semen, not the sperm.

As with most announcements in the biotech arena, I have to stop and think if this development is inherently good, bad or neither. In this case, after much thought, my sentiment is that the molecular condom against HIV could be a good thing. If it doesn't have any significant contraceptive action, then it may be a blessing for married couples where one partner is HIV positive. They could even have a child with a significantly lower risk of either the mother or baby contracting HIV.

Of course the molecular condom could promote promiscuity if used incorrectly, but so can a lot of things (like television). And in the case of widespread rape in some areas of Africa, it maybe the only way a woman could protect herself against HIV:

Microbicides are seen as a way for women to gain power by protecting themselves from HIV, particularly in impoverished nations where AIDS is widespread, where rape is rampant or where conventional condoms are taboo, not reliably available or where men resist using them.

Monday, October 2. 2006

Remember the anthrax scare of 2001? The federal government was charged with quickly getting an anthrax vaccine in mass production. Things aren't going as well as planned. From the Washington Post:

By now, millions of anthrax vaccine shots developed through cutting-edge genetic engineering were supposed to be filling a new national stockpile of biodefense drugs. Instead, five years after anthrax attacks left five dead, sickened 17 and panicked the country, the nearly $1 billion contract awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to a tiny and struggling San Francisco Bay Area biotechnology company is plagued with misfortune and delays.

Delivery has been put off until at least 2008 and maybe later while the government and VaxGen Inc. trade barbs over who is at fault. The dispute has further tarnished Project Bioshield, a government program that has alienated many potential biodefense contractors.

The anthrax attacks of 2001 prompted passage of Project Bioshield, which promised to build national drug stockpiles to be used in case of a bioterror attack.

The project was supposed to jump start a national security renaissance among drug makers by guaranteeing contracts to develop drugs for combatting potential bioweapons. But it has been greeted with skepticism by many in the industry.

The anthrax project, the first and largest Bioshield contract, was to be the crown jewel.

In November 2004, the $877.5 million contract was awarded to VaxGen to genetically engineer a replacement for the current anthrax vaccine, which requires six shots to be administered over 18 months. VaxGen's is expected to require no more than three shots.

Since winning the contract, however, VaxGen has repeatedly stumbled, starting with its disclosure it would miss the original deadline of November 2005 by a year.

Friday, September 8. 2006

I have never blogged about Terri Schiavo simply because her tragic death had more to do with the law and the culture of death than with biotechnology. Until I read this. From Wired Magazine:

For someone left for dead 12 years ago, Candice Ivey seems to be doing pretty well. She's still got her homecoming queen looks and A-student smarts. She has earned a college degree and holds a job as a recreational therapist in a retirement community. She has, however, lost her ballerina grace and now walks a bit like her feet are asleep....

In November 1994, when Ivey was 17, a log truck T-boned her Chevy Blazer. She remembers nothing of the next two months. But it's all seared into the memory of her mother, Elaine, especially the part where the doctors told her that Candice, who was in a coma and breathing by respirator, should be pronounced dead. Her brain, they said, was entirely and irreversibly destroyed by a week of swelling and bleeding and being pushed up against the inside of her skull like a ship scuttled on a reef.

A few days later, however, Candice proved the doctors wrong. Unhooked from the respirator, she continued to breathe on her own – something she couldn't have done if she were truly brain-dead. Now Elaine faced the horrible decision of whether or not to feed her child. The doctors warned her that Candice would probably never wake up, and if she did, she almost certainly would be unable to live independently. In the worst case, she would enter the permanent twilight known as a persistent vegetative state, in which she might sleep and wake and move her limbs, yawn and sneeze and utter sounds, but not in a way that was purposeful. Elaine decided to keep the feeding tube in place, which, she recalls, made the neurosurgeon furious. "He thought I was just prolonging her agony and that I would have a vegetable on my hands," she says. "But when it's your child lying there, you'll do anything."

In this case, anything included letting an orthopedic surgeon named Edwin Cooper try an experimental treatment. He approached Elaine out of the blue soon after the accident and urged her to let him put an electrified cuff on Candice's wrist. It sent a 20-milliampere charge – enough to make her hand clench and her arm tremble a little – into her median nerve, a major pathway to the brain. It might rouse her from her coma, he said.

"I thought it was hokey, if you want to know the truth," Elaine says. She agreed nonetheless – she was, she says, "drunk as a coot" from a combination of "nerve pills and a full glass of whisky" – and the cuff went on. Within a week, Elaine was sure that Candice was stirring. Her doctors doubted it. "They kept telling me it was just reflexes, but a momma knows." Then, just before New Year's Day, a month after the accident, Cooper asked Candice how many little pigs there were. She held up three fingers.

Now 29, Candice Ivey is thrilled to see the 64-year-old Cooper when he shows up at her door. She gives him a big, warm hug and sits close to him on the couch. They chat about the presentation on traumatic brain injury that she recently gave to nurses at Cooper's hospital, and how hearing the story of her ordeal again brought him to tears. As she tells me of her injury and its aftermath, she comes back time and again to her gratitude. "The wreck was my fault," she says. "But getting better, that was God's doing. He sent Dr. Cooper to my momma, didn't he?"